Juvenal Amezquita v. Marcos Rodriguez et al

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS 3 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Case number 16 U 06415. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lc). Modified on 7/19/2016 (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

JUVENAL AMEZQUITA,

Case № 2:16-cv-05115-ODW (AGR)

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

14

MARCOS RODRIGUEZ; ELVIRA

15

RODRIGUEZ; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, REQUEST TO PROCEED IN
Defendants.

16

AND DENYING AS MOOT
FORMA PAUPERIS [3]

17
18

On July 12, 2016, Defendant Marcos Rodriguez removed this unlawful detainer

19

action to federal court based on both diversity jurisdiction and federal question

20

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) After reviewing Defendant’s Notice of Removal and the

21

underlying Complaint, it is clear that no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists.

22

Consequently, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to state court.1

23

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by the

24

Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also Kokkonen v.

25

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court

26
27
28

1

After carefully considering Defendants’ Notice of Removal and the documents filed in support
thereof, the Court deems the matter appropriate for sua sponte decision. United Inv’rs Life Ins. Co.
v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).

1

may be removed to federal court only if the federal court would have had original

2

jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

3

jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law, id. § 1331, or where each

4

plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the amount in

5

controversy exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332(a).

Federal courts have original

6

The removal statute is strictly construed against removal, and “[f]ederal

7

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

8

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking

9

removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed

10

Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). The court may remand the action

11

sua sponte “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court

12

lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also United Inv’rs Life

13

Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).

14

“[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the

15

well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when

16

a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded

17

complaint.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083,

18

1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475

19

(1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint prays for relief for

20

unlawful detainer solely based on California’s Code of Civil Procedure § 1661a.

21

(ECF No. 1 Ex. C, Complaint.) Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by

22

itself present a federal question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law,

23

no basis for federal question jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.2 At

24

best, Defendants can only assert federally-based defenses, which are not considered

25
26
27
28

2

See, e.g., U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Tyler, No. C 10-4033 PJH, 2010 WL 4918790, at *2 (N.D.
Cal. Nov. 12, 2010) (holding that a single claim for unlawful detainer under state law did not provide
a basis for federal question jurisdiction); IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337
PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (same).

2

1

when evaluating jurisdiction. Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.

2

2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a

3

federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the

4

plaintiff’s complaint.”).

5

Nor is there any basis for diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff requests damages at

6

the rate of $51.66 per day from May 24, 2016 (i.e., 54 days total). (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 17.)

7

This amounts to $2,789.64, which is far less than the required amount in controversy

8

of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

9

For the reasons discussed above, the Court REMANDS the action to the

10

Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 16U06415, for lack of subject

11

matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Court DENIES AS MOOT

12

Defendant’s Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) The Clerk of the

13

Court shall close the case.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

July 19, 2015

18
19
20
21

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3